QR Link

Title
Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. vs. Jalos

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 179918 ABAD, J Sep 8, 2010

A group of subsistence !shermen !le a complaint against Shell Philippines

Exploration B.V., alleging that the construction and operation of a natural gas
pipeline caused a decline in !sh population and loss of income, leading the
court to rule that the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Pollution
Adjudication Board and should be brought before them.

subsistence !shermen natural gas pipeline decline in !sh population

loss of income pollution case Show all keywords

Case Digest (G.R. No. 179918)

Facts:

The case involves a complaint !led by a group of subsistence !shermen

against Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.

The complaint alleges that the construction and operation of a natural gas
pipeline by Shell caused a decline in !sh population and loss of income for
the !shermen.

The !shermen claim that the pipeline a"ected the marine life in the Mindoro
Sea and forced them to go farther out to sea to catch !sh.
Issue:

Whether the complaint is a pollution case that falls within the jurisdiction of
the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB).

Whether the complaint su#ciently alleges a cause of action against Shell.

Whether the suit is actually against the State and is barred under the
doctrine of state immunity.

Ruling:

The complaint is a pollution case and should have been brought before the
PAB.

The complaint su#ciently alleges a cause of action against Shell.

Shell is not immune from suit under the doctrine of state immunity.

Ratio:

The court ruled that the complaint is a pollution case and should have been
brought before the PAB, which has the expertise to determine pollution-
related matters.

The de!nition of pollution in the law includes any alteration of the physical,
chemical, and biological properties of water that is harmful or detrimental to
public health, safety, or welfare.

Since the complaint alleged that the pipeline greatly a"ected the marine life
and altered the natural habitat of !sh, it constituted pollution.

The court ruled that the complaint su#ciently alleged a cause of action
against Shell.

While the complaint did not provide scienti!c explanations for how the
pipeline a"ected the !sh population, it stated the ultimate facts on which the
claim for relief was based.

A cause of action exists if the construction and operation of the pipeline

indeed caused !sh decline and loss of income, as alleged in the complaint.

The court ruled that Shell is not immune from suit under the doctrine of
state immunity.

Shell is not an agent of the Philippine government but a service contractor

for the exploration and development of natural gas reserves.

An agent represents the principal and brings about business relations

between the principal and third persons, while a service contractor provides
services, technology, and !nancing.

Since Shell is not an agent of the government, it can be sued without the
State's consent.

Therefore, the court granted the petition and dismissed the complaint
without prejudice to its re!ling with the PAB.

The PAB has the jurisdiction to adjudicate pollution-related cases, and courts
cannot take cognizance of the complaint until the PAB has made a prior
determination.